Regular Paper Communicating Strategic Intent with...

Communicating StrategicIntent with Systemigrams:Application to theNetwork-EnabledChallengeCharles D. Blair, John T. Boardman, and Brian J. Sauser*

Stevens Institute of Technology, School of Systems and Enterprises, Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ 07030

COMMUNICATING STRATEGIC INTENT WITH SYSTEMIGRAMS

Received 27 March 2007; Revised 27 June 2007; Accepted 27 June 2007, after one or more revisionsPublished online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).DOI 10.1002/sys.20079

ABSTRACT

The U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) has mandated the development of a network enabledcapability (NEC) across all of defense, aimed at producing agile military and nonmilitaryeffects via a network of networks. This paper provides an overview of NEC, representing it asa complex human activity system of systems (SoS), analysis of which cannot rely on purelytraditional reductionist engineering approaches, requiring instead a soft-systems engineeringapproach. A literature review is then provided, covering nontraditional systems methodolo-gies of the past 25 years, highlighting the more recent trend towards multimethodologicalpractice. The paper introduces the systemic diagram, or systemigram, conceptual model,explaining its evolution from a form of visual language to its use as an appreciative learningsystem in a soft-systems methodology. Using the written prose of MoD policy makers, asystemigram model is constructed which represents the NEC concept, providing a systemicvisualization of its complexity and an elucidation of the key SoS attributes of emergence,hierarchy, and boundary. Finally, the NEC systemigram is used in an example storyboardingtechnique, demonstrating its utility as a platform for stakeholder dialog leading towards arefined model that reflects a deeper understanding of NEC strategy. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals,Inc. Syst Eng 10:309–322, 2007

Key words: BSSM; multimethodology; NEC; SoS; SSM; systemigram

Regular Paper

*Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed (e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]).

Systems Engineering, Vol. 10, No. 4, 2007© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

309

1. INTRODUCTION

To date, much attention and no small amount of fundinghas been paid to the study and development of NetworkEnabled Capability (NEC). However, there appears tobe no single definition for the concept. In describingNEC, U.K. Ministry of Defense (MoD) Joint ServicePublication (JSP) 777 [2005b] states:

… Our understanding of NEC will continue to develop,so it is important not to constrain the future directionof NEC by an overly-restrictive definition. … Net-worked Enabled Capability offers decisive advantagethrough the timely provision and exploitation of infor-mation and intelligence to enable effective decision-making and agile actions. NEC will be implementedthrough the coherent and progressive development ofDefence equipment, software, processes, structures,and individual and collective training, underpinned bythe development of a secure, robust, and extensivenetwork of networks.

Unlike the more network-centric approach as em-bodied in the U.S. DoD Network Centric Warfare(NCW), NEC is described as a complex sociotechnicalcapability that should be considered holistically acrossall defense Lines of Development (Training, Equip-ment, Personnel, Information, Doctrine & Concepts,Organization, Infrastructure, and Logistics). Checkland[1993] would classify NEC as a human activity system(HAS) by virtue of its heavy human influence and socialinteraction. JSP 777 [2005b] describes NEC develop-ment as centered around seven high-level goals whichin turn are broken down into specific objectives, eachwith an owner “ … responsible for delivering, in con-junction with other stakeholders, the outputs requiredto achieve their objectives.” In specifying NEC require-ments, Alston [2003] proposes an “ends, ways, means”approach wherein analysis proceeds sequentially start-ing with the desired end state, through a statement ofhow this will be achieved, and ending with a statementof what equipment is required. The language of each ofthese approaches points to reductionist, goal-orientedthinking, the hallmark of a traditional positivist para-digm (a philosophical world view that objective knowl-edge can always be achieved; see Mingers [2004]). Thephilosophical assumptions associated with the positiv-ist paradigm and its weakness in the treatment of com-plex systems have been covered extensively in theliterature of the past 25 years. Checkland [1993] reiter-ates the inadequacy of a traditional positivist approachin addressing soft problems based on a number of casestudies. Mingers [2004] discusses the move away froma positivist paradigm in the practice of managementscience/operational research (MS/OR). The positivist

paradigm is particularly ill-suited for the large HAS.Checkland [1993, p. 256] writes: “… We were drivento conclude that there is a large class of soft problemsfor which the language of ‘ends’ and ‘means’ is inap-propriate, problems concerned not with achieving goalsbut with managing on-going relationships throughtime.” In the early system definition phases of a project,strategic vision and user needs must be captured andaccurately translated into requirements, establishing theoperational context for system development. In the caseof NEC, feeding this translation process are competingsocial elements arising from the multitude of stake-holder views to be collected, analyzed, understood, andintegrated into a set of coherent requirements faithfulto the perceived intent of the original strategy. Withinthis dynamic and complex NEC SoS, what Senge[1990] calls “dynamic complexity” and Ackoff [1981]politely calls a “mess,” one strives to understand andeffectively communicate NEC strategy to projectteams.

This paper contends that communication of NECstrategy begins with a proper visualization of its com-plexity using a systemic diagram, or systemigram con-ceptual model. Following a literature review of existingnontraditional systems methodologies, the paper dis-cusses the evolution of the systemigram technique andprovides justification for its application to NEC. Aconceptual model of NEC strategy is then developedusing the systemigram as part of a broader soft-systemsmethodology. The paper concludes with a storyboard-ing technique in which the systemigram is decomposedinto several major themes, or strands, intended for usein a stakeholder dialog to elucidate key issues for debateresulting in a refined systemigram model to be used incommunicating NEC strategy.

2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

The number of nontraditional systems methodologies(defined herein as methodologies founded on other thana positivist/reductionist paradigm) in the literature ap-pears to have stabilized following a period of rapidgrowth from the mid-1980s through the 1990s. Mingersand Rosenhead [2004] provide a summary of suchmethodologies, also known as “problem structuringmethodologies” in MS/OR circles, in practice. Severalof these methodologies are summarized in Table I withreferences. These methodologies are in contrast to themore positivist techniques currently employed in sys-tems engineering practice and discussed primarily inthe U.S. literature such as: Needs Analysis, Hierarchyof Objectives, or Strategies to Tasks (see Thaler [1993];Kent and Thaler [1993]).

310 BLAIR, BOARDMAN, AND SAUSER

Systems Engineering DOI 10.1002/sys

In other writings, Gu and Tang [2005] discuss amethodology of “meta-synthesis” founded on Easternphilosophy. The meta-synthesis approach is designed toaddress unstructured problems using a combination of

soft and decision support methods attempting to syn-thesize experts, knowledge databases, and computersvia networking. Meta-synthesis along with many of theapproaches in Table I bring with them considerable

Table I. Example Nontraditional Systems Methodologies in Practice

COMMUNICATING STRATEGIC INTENT WITH SYSTEMIGRAMS 311


process “overhead” in terms of facilitator knowledge,required infrastructure support, special equipment, andformat. SSM (depending on its design) offers the leastoverhead cost. Of interest in this paper towards our needto address NEC is a methodology that minimizes suchoverhead yet offers flexibility in terms of customerinteraction while still meeting the need for problemvisualization and strategic knowledge capture. Realiz-ing that large SoS such as NEC reflect a continuum ofcomplexity we also seek an approach which can beadapted to a multimethodological treatment. In a sur-vey, Munro and Mingers [2002] show SSM to be thepredominant approach used in combination with othermethods in multi-methodological practice. This is re-flected in the literature in the plethora of examplesshowing successful adaptation/extension of SSMacross a range of engineering disciplines. Fillery, Rusli,and James [1996] describe several rich picture tech-niques to supplement the problem situation structuringphase of SSM to include caricature, problematiquediagramming (rich picture technique to capture prob-lem causal relationships), SWOT, results group-ing/ranking, cognitive maps, and Ishikawa (fish-bone)diagrams. Sagoo and Boardman [1998] developed atranslation algorithm to convert the SSM conceptualmodel descriptions into Petri models, thus permittinganalysis and verification of the models using Petri nettheory. Bustard et al. [2005] present a complementaryapplication of SSM and Viable Systems Modeling inthe design of autonomic systems. Patel [2002] aug-mented SSM with the TELOS knowledge repre-sentation language to provide knowledge capture in acomplex office environment. Sinha and Chaczko[2005] extend SSM through the integration of a Sys-temic Analysis through Familiar Entities (SAFE) modelinto the Checkland’s [1993] CATWOE technique tocapture the feedback behavior of changing World viewsin the analysis of IS systems. Keenan and Bustard[2006] proposed a contiguous use of SSM and eXtremeProgramming (XP) in support of agile software devel-opment.

3. SYSTEMIGRAMS—EVOLUTION ANDRELEVANCE TO NEC

The evolution of systemigrams may be considered inthree phases: its development as a form of visual lan-guage, its adaptation as a methodology for businessarchitecting, and its refinement as an appreciative learn-ing system. In Phase 1, development of the techniqueconcentrated on the graphical portrayal of structuredprose. The first application of the method involvedsupport to a European R&D project [Boardman, 2005].In this instance, the systemigram was employed to

communicate business strategy to a project team usingwritten prose found in a project notebook whose soleauthor had left the company. Inspired by Checkland’sformal HAS model [1993], Boardman proposed thatdiagrams, which could be regarded as systems in theirown right, were the way forward, and that the compo-nents of these systemic diagrams, or systemigrams,would come directly from the author via his/her writ-ings. Diagrams that capture concepts are not new (e.g.,concept diagrams, concept mapping, fishbone dia-grams, influence diagrams, and even the original flowcharts). However, these other diagram types are largelymemoryless, capturing the immediacy of prose but thenforgetting and moving on to the next local piece ofknowledge, making it more difficult to find longerthought threads since they concentrate on linear think-ing rather than holistic thinking. Senge’s diagrams[Senge, 1990] are a possible exception to this, but theseare usually kept deliberately small with the totality ofthe language conveyed by the diagram difficult to com-prehend. As they are assembled in the spirit of systems(e.g., parts, relationships, wholes, emergence, flows,inputs, outputs, transformations, process, and net-works), and used as appreciative learning systemswithin a soft systems methodology, systemigrams are apowerful medium for systems thinking and systemspractice.

The systemigram was intended to convey a synergyof prose and pictures, thus embodying the best featuresof each. A scientific basis for such synergy exists in thefield of neuropsychology [Paivio, 1991; Mazoyer et al.,2002]. Critically, the systemigram must be faithful tothe text whence it came; recovery of the original proseby inspection of the diagram a key requirement. Thisimposes certain rules upon both prose and diagram asfollows:

Rules for Prose 1. Address strategic intent, not procedural tactics.2. Be well-crafted, searching the mind of reader and

author.3. Facilitation and dialogue with stakeholders

(owner/originator of strategic intent) may be re-quired to create structured text.

4. Length variable but less than 2000 words; scopeof prose must fit scope of resulting systemigram

Rules for Graphic1. Required entities are nodes, links, inputs, out-

puts, beginning, end (similar in purpose to Horn’s[1998] morphological primitives).

2. Sized for a single page.3. Nodes represent key concepts, noun phrases

specifying people, organizations, groups, arti-facts, and conditions.



4. Links represent relationships and flow betweennodes, verb phrases (occasional prepositionalphrases) indicating transformation, belonging,and being.

5. Nodes may contain other nodes (to indicatebreak-out of a document or an organiza-tional/product/process structure.

6. For clarity, the systemigram should contain nocrossover of links.

7. Based on experience, to maintain reasonablesize for presentation purposes, the ratio ofnodes to links should be approximately 1.5.

8. Main flow of systemigram is from top left tobottom right.

9. Geography of systemigram may be exploited toelucidate the “why,” “what,” “how” in order tovalidate the Transformational aspect of the sys-temic model.

10. Color may be used to draw attention to sub-families of concepts and transformations.

Phase 2 involved the adaptation of systemigrams byAlison Boardman [Boardman, 2005] to a business ar-chitecting approach called the Boardman Soft SystemsMethodology (BSSM). Like SSM from which it wasinspired, BSSM is firmly rooted in practical applica-tion. Unlike SSM, however, BSSM is more narrowlyfocused on those practicalities of project managementassociated with concurrent engineering (CE) in themodern extended enterprise. Boardman [1994] de-scribes the use of the systemigram in developing aprocess model unifying engineering and project man-agement activities. Boardman and Cole [1996] used theBSSM approach for the representation and analysis ofprocess knowledge as a platform for process improve-ment in capital goods manufacture. The essence ofBSSM is threefold.

First, taking a business or technical process approachhas considerable virtue:

• It relates powerfully and compellingly to whatpeople do.

• It yields a business process architecture (BPA) ofthe enterprise.

• It can accommodate an extended enterprise per-spective, integrating the component BPAs into asystem of systems (SoS) view.

• It can provide a baseline from which to launchdevelopment projects.

• It animates an otherwise sterile library of proc-esses into an active and adaptive portfolio ofcompetence.

• It provides a benchmark for demonstrating andmaturing competence of the enterprise.

• It affords a profile by which human skills, knowl-edge and aptitudes can be successfully alignedwith tasks.

Second, the BPA can be treated in exactly the samemanner as a product architecture, relevant to lifecycles,reviews, tradeoffs, and simulation. It is important toemphasize that systemigrams are not architecturesthemselves, but rather they can provide a neutral andcommon environment for comparing and aligning en-terprise architectures.

The following case studies [Boardman, 2006] inwhich systemigrams have sought to capture “system”architectures include: UK Rail Industry Economic Ar-chitecture, UK Digital Terrestrial TV Strategy, andDaily Mail and General Trust plc Enterprise portfoliostrategy. Systemigrams have also been employed in theanalysis of SoS complexity in the USAF 2020 CombatStrategy [Boardman and Wilson, 2005]. Having estab-lished BSSM as a viable methodology for the modelingand improvement of business processes, Phase 3 shiftedemphasis to refinement of systemigrams as a learningsystem facilitated through the technique of storyboard-ing. In this method, the composer of the systemigramcreates a storyboard using carefully selected sceneswhich are subnets of the systemigram. The storyboard-ing helps to convey the message of the systemigram,together with the message that the author of the originaltext intended, to a wider audience. In the systemigram,advantage is taken of color, flow, and texture to createscenes (another connection may be made here withHorn’s [1998] use of Gestalt principles of perceptionand topologies to convey meaning) which represent keyparts of the message which can only be amplified byhaving the right people (stakeholders) listen to thesystemigram story. This drilling down can be continuedfor as long as required or until the messages begin tofail the original top-level requirements for the originaltext’s systemigram interpretation. In principle, this drilldown technique can be part of a requirements manage-ment approach in which the key concepts (nodes) arenow increasingly circumscribed by relationships withpeers, parents, and “offspring.” Such an approach wasused in the case study for the BBC in the subject ofdigital television [Boardman, 2006].

The use of BSSM systemigrams to address NECmay be justified in terms of its validity, relevance, andpragmatic merit. Validity is established in the properconsideration of NEC as a complex sociotechnical HASrequiring a soft-systems treatment. Its relevance lies inthe fact that BSSM was specifically designed to addressissues associated with ill-structured problems in con-current engineering, extended enterprise, and projectmanagement domains [Ramsay, Cole, and Boardman,



1996; Sherman, Cole, and Boardman, 1996], domainsmapping directly to the acquisition of NEC. NEC rep-resents problems covering the spectrum from soft(HAS) to hard (network design). While this paper ad-dresses the soft problem of strategy capture, BSSMoffers versatility when used as a multimethodology inthose problem interventions requiring a multi-paradigmapproach [Clegg and Boardman, 1997]. Systemigramsfacilitate the efficient capture and communication ofstrategic intent to project teams, establishing a frame-work for comprehensive NEC requirements definitionand understanding. The pragmatic merit of BSSM/sys-temigrams is established by virtue of its successfulemployment in a variety of interventions [Boardman,1994, 1995, 2005, 2006; Boardman and Cole, 1996;Boardman and Wilson, 2005].

4. APPLICATION OF BSSM ANDSYSTEMIGRAMS TO NEC

4.1. The Problem Situation

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, the UKrevisited the standing Strategic Defense Review (SDR)of 1998 and published the SDR New Chapter (SDR-NC) in 2002 [UK MoD, 2003b] to address the changingsecurity environment brought on by the global war onterror. The Defense White Paper, “Delivering Securityin a Changing World” [UK MoD, 2003a], built on theSDR-NC by laying out the policies for NEC, realizedthat operations against international terrorism requireincreased precision and rapid delivery of military effect,capabilities achieved only through a networked forceemploying shared situational awareness. A number ofpolicy and guidance initiatives have spun off from theSDR-NC, all feeding the future UK Operational Con-cepts for Space, Air, Land, Maritime, and Logistics,setting the operational context for NEC. These variousoperational concepts must adopt NEC as an enablingcapability crossing all Defense Lines of Development(Training, Equipment, People, Infrastructure, Doctrine,Organization, Information, and Logistics) to remaincoherent with the overall UK Defense Strategy. This isno small order indeed and represents an unstructuredview of the problem situation.

4.2. Structured Text

The following structured text was developed from theauthors’ review of the writings found within the follow-ing open-source publications: Defence White Paper[UK MoD, 2003], Joint Doctrine Note 1/05 [UK MoD,2005a], JSP 777 [UK MoD, 2005b], and Alston [2003].The structured text constitutes an integrated rich text

formulation of stakeholder world views of NEC strat-egy embodied in these papers.

Structured Text

UK Defense policy directs the development of futureUK Operational Concepts for Land, Air, Space, Mari-time, and Logistics. These operational concepts areguided by the UK Joint Vision, Joint High-Level Op-erational Concept, Effects-Based Operations Concept,and the Defense White Paper. The operational conceptsare informed by emerging concepts such as NEC, toachieve the overall UK Defense Aim: “to deliver secu-rity for the people of the United Kingdom and theOverseas Territories by defending them, includingagainst terrorism; and to act as a force for good bystrengthening international peace and stability.” NECenables a flexible acquisition strategy to establish co-herent acquisition programs, these programs adoptingan incremental approach to realize rapid technologyinsertion to achieve a net-ready force which exploits anetwork infrastructure to enable shared awareness.Shared awareness underpins flexible working to de-liver synchronized effects that address the dynamicmission which is undertaking the defined UK militarytasks to achieve military and non-military effects. NECrequires an information infrastructure to provide se-cure and assured information access to support thenetwork infrastructure and facilitate shared awareness.NEC also employs Effects Based Planning across Gov-ernment which requires a dynamic planning systemsupported by distributed tools and models to manageAgile Mission Groups, thus enabling Flexible Work-ing. NEC improves equipment integration of weaponsystems, intelligence, surveillance, target acquisitionand reconnaissance systems, and command and con-trol nodes to facilitate the Agile Mission Groups. NECalso enables Networked Support across public andindustry to sustain Agile Mission Groups used to en-able Flexible Working.

4.3. Systemigram Design

The above structured text is reflected in Figures 1 and2. Figure 1 represents the higher-level systemigrammodel of the NEC context discussed above, showinghow NEC informs the operational concept developmentused to achieve the overall UK Defense Aim.

The systemigram in Figure 2 represents a magnifiedversion of the NEC Emerging Concepts node of Figure1. Five main strategy “strands” derived from the struc-tured text are indicated by numbers in Figure 2, al-though one is encouraged to take advantage of color aswell to highlight the strands. The following core NECthemes as defined in the NEC Conceptual Framework[Alston, 2003] are included in the systemigram: Flex-ible Acquisition, Information Infrastructure, Secure and



Figure 1. NEC context.

Figure 2. NEC Systemigram.



Assured Information, Effects-Based Planning, Net-worked Support, Shared Awareness, Agile MissionGroups, Flexible Working, and Synchronized Effects.Eight of the core themes cover equipment capabilityand one the acquisition process.

A story-boarding technique should now be used inwhich a systemigram slide show is utilized to engagethe stakeholder audience in an iterative process ofmeaningful dialogue/debate by walking through eachof the strategy strands. This activity of stakeholderinteraction via storyboarding is at the heart of the sys-temigram technique, reflecting its power as a concep-tual, appreciative learning system. This also places nosmall amount of responsibility on the facilitator as thetechnique itself involves a prudent application of artfulcommunications (both passive and active), acknow-ledging the cultures of the intended audience. For thisreason there are no strict rules to storyboarding; thestory can be told in a variety of ways but all have thesame generic format: to create a storyboard using care-fully selected scenes which are subnets of the systemi-gram. Storyboarding helps convey the message of thesystemigram, together with the message that theauthor(s) of the original text intended, to a wider audi-

ence. The following paragraphs provide one potentialstory-boarding technique for the NEC systemigram inwhich advantage is taken of specific strategy strandshighlighted numerically.

Strand 1, shown in Figure 3, develops the FlexibleAcquisition core theme of NEC. Inclusive FlexibleAcquisition is a coordinating process across the MoD,industry, and other government departments (OGDs) toestablish coherent acquisition programs. This is themost pressing and difficult issue of NEC to overcomeas it directly addresses the legacy “stovepiped” organi-zation and thinking of various program offices withinthe MoD procurement organization. An incrementalacquisition approach is necessary to minimize risk andrealize rapid technology insertion in an unpredictablefunding environment. This equipment is necessary toachieve a net-ready force which may exploit a networkready infrastructure consisting of C4ISR systems suchas the Defense Information Infrastructure (DII),SKYNET 5, Cormorant, Joint Operational Picture(JOP), Bowman, and the Joint C2 Support System(JC2SS) to enable Shared Awareness, with secure andassured information providing the underpinning sup-port. In turn, Shared Awareness underpins Flexible

Figure 3. Flexible acquisition strand.



Working, the ability for assets to rapidly reconfigure tomeet changing mission needs. Through Flexible Work-ing, Synchronized Effects between mission groups maybe delivered to address the very dynamic nature ofasymmetric warfare. Thus, the UK military may under-take defined Military Tasks to achieve both military andnonmilitary (political, economic) effects.

Strand 2 in Figure 4 shows an information infrastruc-ture is required to provide secure and assured informa-tion. The Global Information Infrastructure (GII)initiative is the integration and interaction of networks,information appliances, information resources, applica-tions, and people. This infrastructure will provide infor-mation sharing between ISTAR, OGD, and Civilentities at varying levels of security and compartmen-talization, a nontrivial challenge in itself. This informa-tion is required, indeed is the foundation for, thenet-ready infrastructure discussed previously as well asa key enabler of Shared Awareness.

NEC forces will have access to many effectorswithin the battlespace that go beyond the traditional“attrition” effectors. Strand 3 in Figure 5 highlights thatinformation operations is a large part of Effects BasedPlanning (EBP), providing the commander with opera-tional flexibility. NEC will take a planning approachthat focuses on the use of military and nonmilitary

effects against an enemy. EBP must be integrated withother planning processes in the battlespace, operationalthrough all levels in the MoD and in all governmentdepartments with impact on political, military, and eco-nomic aims. To do this will require dynamic, distributedplanning systems to manage Agile Mission Groups.These planning systems consist of distributed tools andmodels to allow analyses across the operational domainto include interactions between military, diplomatic,and financial effects.

The formation of a net-ready force cannot be limitedby equipment configurations based on existing organ-izational structures. Strand 4 in Figure 6 shows that anNEC force will consist of integrated capability compo-nents (weapon systems, ISTAR systems, and C2 sys-tems) to facilitate formation of Agile Mission Groupsto enable Flexible Working. These agile groups arebrought together for specific operational tasks, eachwith its own set of unique support requirements. Oncecomplete, elements of the agile groups return to theirhost organization. The Shared Awareness within anAgile Mission Group must be very high to facilitateunderstanding and achievement of its common goal.

As Strand 5 in Figure 7 indicates, NEC enables theconcept of fully networked enterprise support. Thissupport is not restricted to in-theatre forces but includes

Figure 4. Information infrastructure strand.



Figure 6. Integrated capability components strand.

Figure 5. Effects-based planning strand.



nonoperational entities such as government bodies, in-dustry, academia, and public services. Through net-working, all of these disparate entities may be broughtto bear in support of in-theater capability. This includessupport such as logistics, data/image analysis, andmedical. These support “forces” are necessary to sus-tain the Agile Mission Groups, support Flexible Work-ing, and, like all other strands, ultimately underpin thedelivery of military and non-military effects.

5. CONCLUSION

This paper has shown a methodology that transformsthe complexity of the NEC SoS into a systemic visuali-zation using the systemigram conceptual modelingtechnique. As one analyzes each of the NEC strategystrands in the model, elements of communication, ho-lism, hierarchy, and boundary emerge in the context ofthe core NEC themes. Such a perspective would not beevident from strict prose or any single architectureframework view. Whereas traditional words and pic-tures represent a positivist ontology of objective sys-tems in the real world, systemigrams represent aphenomenologist ontology, in this case the variousstakeholder world views of NEC which provides the

catalyst for meaningful dialog. The systemigram modelshould be refined through storyboarding, working withthe stakeholders in an iterative process of refinementuntil a comprehensive, coherent understanding of NECstrategy emerges.

6. GLOSSARY

BBC British Broadcasting CorporationBPA Business Process Architecture

BSSM Boardman Soft Systems MethodologyCATWOE Mnemonic for Customers, Actors,

Transformation, Weltanschauung,Owners, Environment

C2 Command and ControlC4ISR Command, Control, Communica-

tions, Computers, Intelligence, Sur-veillance, and Reconnaissance

CE Concurrent EngineeringCSH Critical Systems HeuristicsCST Critical Systems ThinkingDII Defense Information Infrastructure

DLO Defense Logistics OrganizationDMM Dialog Mapping Methodology

DoD Department of Defense

Figure 7. Networked enterprise strand.



DoDAF Department of Defense ArchitectureFramework

DPA Defense Procurement AgencyEBO Effects Based OperationsEBP Effects Based PlanningGII Global Information Infrastructure

HAS Human Activity SystemHLOC High Level Operational Concept

IM Interactive ManagementISM Interpretive Structural Modeling

ISTAR Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Ac-quisition, and Reconnaissance

JC2SS Joint C2 Support SystemJOP Joint Operational PictureJSP Joint Service Publication

MoD Ministry of DefenseMoDAF Ministry of Defense Architecture

FrameworkMS Management Science

NEC Network Enabled CapabilityOGD Other Government Department

OR Operational ResearchR&D Research and Development

SAFE Systemic Analysis through FamiliarEntities

SAST Strategic Assumptions Surfacing andTesting

SCA Strategic Choice ApproachSDR Strategic Defense Review

SDR-NC Strategic Defense Review – NewChapter

SODA Strategic Options Development andAnalysis

SoS System of SystemsSoSM System of Systems MethodologySSM Soft Systems Methodology

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities,and Threats

TSI Total Systems InterventionXP Extreme Programming

REFERENCES

R. Ackoff, Creating the corporate future, Wiley, New York,1981.

A.J. Alston, UK NEC and capability development, 7th IntCommand Control Res Technol Symp, Quebec City, Can-ada, 2003.

S. Beer, “The Viable System Model: Its provenance, develop-ment, methodology and pathology,” The Viable SystemModel: Interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’sVSM, R. Espejo and R. Harnden (Editors), Wiley, Chich-ester, 1989, pp. 407–439.

J.T. Boardman, A process model for unifying systems engi-neering and project management, Eng Management J 4(1)(1994), 25–35.

J.T. Boardman, Wholes and parts—a systems approach, IEEETrans Syst Man Cybernet 25 (1995), 1150–1161.

J.T. Boardman, The evolution of systemigrams, availablefrom the author, 2005.

J.T. Boardman, Communications with the author, 2006.J.T. Boardman and A.J. Cole, Integrated process improvement

in design and manufacture using a systems approach, IEEProc Control Theory Appl, 1996, Vol. 143, pp. 171–185.

J.T. Boardman and M. Wilson, Addressing the system ofsystems challenge, INCOSE 15th Annu Int Symp, Roch-ester, NY, 2005.

D. Bustard, R. Sterritt, A. Taleb-Bendiab, A. Laws, M. Ran-dles, and F. Keenan, Towards a systemic approach toautonomic systems engineering, 12th IEEE Int ConfWorkshops Eng Computer-Based Systems (ECBS ’05),Greenbelt, MD, 2005, pp. 456–472.

P.B. Checkland, Systems thinking, systems practice, Wiley,Chichester, 1993.

B.T. Clegg and J.T. Boardman, Systemic analysis of concur-rent engineering practice, 5th Int Conf FACTORY 2000,Conf Publ No. 435, Cambridge, UK, 1997, pp. 464–471.

J. Conklin, Dialog mapping: Building shared understandingof wicked problems, Wiley, Chichester, 2006.

C. Eden and F. Ackermann, “Soda—the principles,” RationalAnalysis for a Problematic World Revisited: ProblemStructuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty andConflict, J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers (Editors), Wiley,Chichester, 2001, pp. 43–60.

P.F. Fillery, A. Rusli, and H. James, Describing the problemsituation in IS studies using SSM: A practitioner’s view,Information Systems Conference, Palmerston North, NZ,1996, pp. 2–9.

J.W. Forrester, Principles of systems, Wright-Allen Press,Cambridge, 1969.

J.K. Friend and A. Hickling, Planning under pressure: Thestrategic choice approach, Urban and Regional PlanningSeries Volume 37, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford,1987.

J. Gu and X. Tang, Meta-synthesis approach to complexsystem modeling, Eur J Oper Res 166 (2005), 597–614.

R.E. Horn, Visual language: Global communication for the21st century, MacroVU, Bainbridge Island, WA, 1998.

M. Jackson, “Pluralism in systems thinking and practice,”Multi-methodology: The theory and practice of combin-ing management science methodologies, J. Mingers andA. Gill (Editors), Wiley, Chichester, 1997, pp. 347–378.

M. Jackson and P. Keys, Towards a system of systems meth-odology, J Oper Res Soc 35 (1984), 473, pp. 473–486.

F. Keenan and D. Bustard, Aligning computing systems withtheir environment: An agile perspective, 13th Annu IEEEInt Symp Workshop Eng Computer Based Systems (ESBS’06), Potsdam, Germany, 2006, pp. 9–17.

G.A. Kent and D.E. Thaler, A new concept for streamliningup-front planning, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 1993.



R.O. Mason and I.I. Mitroff, Challenging strategic planningassumptions, Wiley, New York, 1981.

B. Mazoyer, N. Tzourio-Mazoyer, A. Mazard, M. Denis, andE. Mellet, Neural bases of image and language interac-tions, Int J Psychol 37(4) (2002), 204–208.

G. Midgley, Developing the methodology of TSI: Fromoblique use of methods to creative design, Syst Practice10(3) (1997), 305–319.

J. Mingers, Paradigm wars: Ceasefire announced who will setup the new administration? J Inform Technol 19(3) (2004),165–171.

J. Mingers and J. Rosenhead, Problem structuring methods inaction, Eur J Oper Res 152(3) (2004), 530–554.

I. Munro and J. Mingers, The use of multi-methodology inpractice—results of a survey of practioners, J Oper ResSoc 53(4) (2002), 369–378.

A. Paivio, Dual coding theory: retrospect and current status,Can J Psychol 45 (1991), 255–287.

S. Patel, Understanding problems and problem situations—asystems approach, First IEEE Int Conf Cognitive Infor-matics (ICCI ’02), Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 2002, pp.84–87.

L. Phillips, “People-centered group decision support,”Knowledge-based management support systems, G.Doukidis, F. Land, and G. Miller (Editors), Ellis-Hor-wood, Chichester, 1989, pp. 208–224.

D.A. Ramsay, A.J. Cole, and J.T. Boardman, Reinforcinglearning using soft systemic frameworks, Int J ProjectManagement 14(1) (1996), 31–36.

J.V. Rosenhead and J. Mingers, Rational analysis for a prob-lematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods forcomplexity, uncertainty and conflict, Wiley, Chichester,2001.

J.S. Sagoo and J.T. Boardman, Towards the formalization ofsoft systems models using Petri net theory, IEE ProcControl Theory Appl, 1998, Vol. 145, pp. 463–471.

P. Schoemaker, “Scenario planning: a tool for strategic think-ing,” Strategic development: Methods and models, R.Dyson and F. O’Brien (Editors), Wiley, Chichester, 1998,pp. 185–208.

P.M. Senge, The fifth discipline: The art and practice of thelearning organization, Doubleday/Currency, New York,1990.

D.G. Sherman, A.J. Cole, and J.T. Boardman, Assisting cul-tural reform in a project-based company using Systemi-grams, Int J Project Management 14(1) (1996), 23–30.

S. Sinha and Z. Chaczko, Synergy between SSM and SAFEin sensor network information processing, 3rd IEEE IntConf Industrial Informatics (INDIN), Perth, Australia,2005, pp. 686–691.

D.E. Thaler, A framework for linking means and ends,RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 1993.

E. Trist and H. Murray, “The social engagement of socialscience,” A Tavistock anthology, Volume II: The socio-technical perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press,Philadelphia, 1993.

U.K. Ministry of Defence (UK MoD), Defence White Paper:Delivering security in a changing world, Crown Publica-tions, London, 2003a, http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdon-lyres/051AF365-0A97-4550-99C0-4D87D7C95DED/0/cm6041I_whitepaper2003.pdf

U.K. Ministry of Defence (UK MoD), A new chapter to thestrategic defence review, The Stationery Office, London,2003b, Vol. 1.

U.K. Ministry of Defence (UK MoD), The UK militaryeffects-based approach, Joint Doctrine Note 1/05, JointDoctrine and Concepts Centre (JDCC), Ministry of De-fence, London, 2005a.

U.K. Ministry of Defence (UK MoD), Network enabledcapability, Joint Service Publication (JSP) 777 Edn 1,Ministry of Defence, London, 2005b, http://192.5.30.131/linked_files/issues/nec/nec_jsp777.pdf

W. Ulrich, Critical heuristics of social planning: A new ap-proach to practical philosophy, Wiley, Chichester, 1994.

J.N. Warfield, Structuring complex systems, Monograph No.4, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, 1974.

H. Weihrich, The TOWS matrix: A tool for situational analy-sis, Long Range Plan 15(2) (1982), 54–66.

Charles D. Blair received his B.S.E.E. from Texas Tech University in 1986 and is currently pursuing hisM.Eng. in Systems Design and Operational Effectiveness at Stevens Institute of Technology. He has over20 years experience in systems engineering, radar systems, algorithm design, electronic intelligence, ISR,and simulation. He recently served as a chief systems engineer at L-3 Communications, where he led thedevelopment of network-enabled ISR systems. He is currently a senior systems engineer at MustangTechnology Group, L.P. His research interests include critical heuristics in systems practice and complexsystems architecting. He is a senior member of IEEE.



John Boardman graduated with 1st Class Honors in Electrical Engineering in 1967 from the Universityof Liverpool, from where he also obtained his Ph.D. in 1970. He is currently engaged as DistinguishedService Professor in the School of Systems and Enterprises at Stevens Institute of Technology. He teachesgraduate level courses in Systems Thinking and Architecting the Extended Enterprise and leads theschool’s research program in Enterprise Architecting. Prior to this role he served as Professor of SystemsEngineering at De Montfort University, Leicester. Dr. Boardman’s previous academic appointments havetaken him from the University of Liverpool, through Brighton Polytechnic and Georgia Institute ofTechnology to the University of Portsmouth, which he joined in 1990 as GEC Marconi Professor ofSystems Engineering and founding Director of the School of Systems Engineering. In 1994 he becamefounding Dean of the College of Technology at the University of Portsmouth. He has over 60 refereedpublications to his credit and a textbook published by Prentice Hall, Introduction to Systems Engineering.

Brian Sauser holds a B.S. from Texas A&M University in Agriculture Development with an emphasis inHorticulture Technology, an M.S. from Rutgers University in Bioresource Engineering, and a Ph.D. fromStevens Institute of Technology in Technology Management. He has worked in government, industry, andacademia for more than 12 years as both a researcher/engineer and director of programs. He is currentlyan Assistant Professor at Stevens Institute of Technology in the School of Systems and Enterprises, wherehe holds positions as the Director of Research Administration and the Director of the Systems EngineeringManagement Program. His research interests are in theories, tools, and methods in complex systemsengineering management and system maturity indices for decision support in the systems engineering lifecycle. He is a member of the IEEE Engineering Management Society, American Society of EngineeringEducation, and INCOSE.



Regular Paper Communicating Strategic Intent with...

Documents

Transcript of Regular Paper Communicating Strategic Intent with...